' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,100 of 2004 dated 5-10-2004, registered with Police Station Haram Gate, Multan under sections 420, 468, 471, 482, 483, 485 and 486, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that on the statement made by Muhammad Arshad, complainant. The above mentioned F.I.R. Was registered against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner is running a factory where they are manufacturing adulterated mobil oil and after sealing the same in tin boxes of PSO are selling in the market using the name, style and monogram of PSO. On the complaint, A.S.-I. Muhammad Ayub along with police force conducted the raid at the petitioner's premises and found that the workers of the petitioner busy in packing substandard mobil oil in the tin boxes of PSO and as such Ghulam Yasin, Muhammad Arif were overpowered at the spot but the petitioner and Kashif fled away. The substandard GTX mobil oil along with stickers etc. Of PSO were taken into possession. The petitioner's post-arrest bail was dismissed on 1-1.1-2004 by the Illaqa Magistrate. His bail application was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 22-11-2004.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The co-accused arrested at the spot has been granted bail. The case of the petitioner being at par with other co-accused is entitled to the same treatment. The petitioner was not running the business of adulterated mobil oil. The case of the petition does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is alleged to have been indulging in the business of adulterated mobil oil etc. He is to be dealt with under the relevant provisions of Petroleum Act and Rules and a private person is not authorized to lodge a criminal case. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner's case is that of further inquiry. The petitioner is not previous convict and is responsible citizen of Pakistan.
4. Learned counsel, for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition, refuted the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is causing huge loses to the complainant company. He is a member of a Mafia which deals with the adulterated mobil oil and sells the same in the open market in the name and style of renowned Petroleum Company, not only is causing damages to the company but also creating hazard in the environment and loses to the general public by supplying adulterated substandard mobil oil and diesel etc. Which is causing great damages to the vehicles of the private owners and public-at- large. The petitioner is abusing the needs of his employees by employing them on daily wages for manufacturing for adulterated mobil oil, the labour working in the factory of the petitioner cannot be held responsible for manufacturing of adulterated mobil oil because they are not owner of the factory, and the raw material or goods prepared in the factory. Thus, the petitioner's case is not at par with that of other co-accused. It is further argued that the writ petitioner sought quashment of the F.I.R. Which was dismissed holding that the Petroleum Companies who are being effected by the acts and deed of the petitioner are authorized under the law to proceed against the petitioner and permission of D.C.O. Or other competent authority or not required before conducting raid and proceeding against the petitioner as the petitioner is not authorized dealer of any Petroleum Company.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the relevant record and on the subject.
Admittedly the petitioner was caught red handed by the police manufacturing adulterated mobil oil filling up the same in the tin boxes containing in the name and monogram of PSO complainant's company. Huge quantity of fake sticker and monogram of A PSO were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Stickers used and recovered falls within the definition of document which are used by the petitioner, hence section 468, P.P.C. Prima facie is made out against the accused petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that sections 420, 482, 483, 485, 468'and 471, P.P.C. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause is there, but the Courts are not obliged to exercise its discretion in favor of an accused, who is involved in a crime which affects not only a single person but the public-at-large. The Court has the jurisdiction to refuse bail, if such course of action is compulsory in nature. The petitioner is running business of fake mobil oil, which is damaging and deteriorating the property of public-at-large and is also damaging goodwill of the complainant's company using, its trade mark and stickers for selling his substandard mobil oil etc. The offence committed by the petitioner is admittedly heinous in its nature though does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
' For what has been discussed above, I see no merit in this bail petition and the same is dismissed.
' However, the Investigating Officer is directed to submit report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Within 15 days without fail.